Katherine E. Swinton

The appellant sought leave to appeal a temporary order placing his partner's daughter into the care of the children's aid society.

A subsequent temporary order replaced the appealed order, placing the child with her mother under supervision.

The Divisional Court found the appeal legally moot because the controversy over the child's placement had been removed by the subsequent order.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal and dismissed it.

The applicant dentist sought judicial review of a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decision confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) order requiring him to complete a specified continuing education or remediation program (SCERP) on informed consent.

The order arose from a patient complaint regarding the administration of conscious sedation during a wisdom tooth extraction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC's concerns about the lack of one-on-one communication and the applicant's reliance on staff for informed consent were supported by the record, making the HPARB's confirmation of the decision reasonable.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision dismissing his application for income replacement benefits as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application after the appellant repeatedly failed to cooperate with an ordered independent psychological examination, including raising consent issues and threatening the psychologist.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant's conduct constituted an abuse of process under its rules and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 27, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order and requested a stay.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the motions judge erred in principle by relying on the responding party's evidence from an adjourned cross-motion without allowing the moving party an opportunity to respond.

The request for a stay was refused, and costs were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of Di Luca J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the order as issued and entered was not a final order.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the responding party.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee requiring her to attend in person to be cautioned regarding unprofessional communications.

The applicant had made inappropriate comments in the workplace while experiencing emotional distress related to post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the caution was a remedial measure within the Committee's jurisdiction and was reasonable given the professional standards expected of physicians.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the decision violated her equality rights under the Charter, as she failed to establish that the caution had an adverse impact on her or on people with mental health disabilities generally.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated a bus driver to a non-driving position after he was terminated for a fatal accident and convicted of careless driving.

The applicant argued the arbitrator failed to apply the proper test for discharge and unreasonably found the employment relationship was not irretrievably damaged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably applied the relevant factors, including the grievor's record, remorse, and the nature of the misconduct, in exercising his statutory discretion to substitute a penalty.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interim order made by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario restricting her practice pending an investigation into her issuance of COVID-19 vaccine exemptions.

The applicant challenged a specific term requiring her to consent to the College accessing her OHIP billing records to monitor compliance.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the College had sufficient evidence of risk to patients and the public, and that the OHIP monitoring term was a reasonable measure to ensure compliance with the practice restrictions.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that refused to deduct the respondent's $120,000 long-term disability settlement from her statutory income replacement benefits.

The insurer argued the settlement represented double recovery for income loss.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the adjudicator's finding that the lump-sum settlement resolved multiple claims, including extracontractual damages, and could not be strictly allocated as an income replacement benefit under section 7(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The self-represented client brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order regarding a dispute with her former solicitors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the client to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding solicitors.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 1, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Belobaba J. dated January 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $5,000 payable to the Foodland plaintiffs.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reinstated a grievor who had been discharged for fraudulent misconduct, substituting a ten-day suspension.

The arbitrator found the employer engaged in discriminatory treatment because other employees who committed similar misconduct received significantly lighter penalties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably shifted the evidentiary onus to the employer after the union established a prima facie case of discriminatory discipline, and reasonably concluded the penalty was appropriate.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court reviewed the request in writing.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The applicant, a dentist, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The Board had upheld a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario requiring the applicant to appear for a caution and complete a remediation program regarding record-keeping, informed consent, and case work-up.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Committee refused further written submissions after the matter was remitted by the Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness and concluding that the Board's decision was reasonable.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

In the absence of costs submissions from the responding parties, costs were fixed in the amount of $2,500 payable within 30 days.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy to allow the landlord's mother to move into the property.

The tenants challenged the Board's finding that the landlords required the unit in good faith for the mother's residential occupation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the finding of good faith and intended full-time occupancy were findings of fact, and the appeal raised no extricable question of law as required by s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The appellant, a statutory third party, appealed a motions judge's order refusing leave to serve and file a jury notice on behalf of the defendants, despite the plaintiff's consent.

The motions judge had cited pandemic-related court backlogs as the reason for refusal.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motions judge erred in law by failing to articulate the applicable test, failing to consider the overall context including companion actions with existing jury notices, and failing to consider whether the jury notice would actually cause delay.

Leave was granted to file the jury notice.